tv The Gavin Newsom Show Current July 20, 2012 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
cal satirist. >> thank you for having me on a said day such as this. >> eliot: thank you. john fugelsang stay tune to enter the war room with jennifer granholm. >> thanks for watching the show. as a sitting lt. governor, not surprisingly, i think about the escalating role of money in politics. it's a tough controversial issue. we'll with someone who works every day to bring transparency to governance and politics. >> director fill kaufman is here. he just received and emmy.
>> google employee number 20, now c.e.o. number seven. she gives us five clues for what it takes to succeed in the valley. we'll decipher what it really means. so often we talk about how we can make technology for accessible to everyone. there's one place we can do more using the internet to help government become more open and accountable. ellen, thanks for being on the show. >> happy to be here. >> let's jump right into this, openness transparency and actability those three issues is money in politics. this presidential election is just a perfect example the absurdity of money and what it's already played in terms of its impact and outcomes of the primaries and in the
presidential contest. what can we do to address this fundamental issue. >> first we have to understand that transparency of political money is the kind of democracy without that, we know nothing about what's really going on, the kinds of influences that the money might exert on the people who are behind the candidates. the turn of the century the turn of the last century, 1907 we've had a firm rule about clear and complete disclosure of campaign contributions. it is the baseline of what we know. only in the wake of the recent citizens united decision and congress's failure to pass a piece of legislation that requires disclosure do we have the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going into our political system right now that are undisclosed so there's one pot that's completely undisclosed. it's dark money, it's a black hole. that's where a corporation
wealthy individuals who have agendas, both of whom have agendas are putting a lot of money and we have no idea who they are or what influence they'll have over either of the presidential candidates or the house and senate candidates. this money is going into all levels of races. there's another pile of cash that is disclosed. we're using technology creating a scraping system from the federal elections commission. on a 24/7 basis, we can watch that chunk of money come in. that will be 10s of millions of dollars, but the dark money we can't follow at all which means we citizens left literally in a black hole. >> even before citizens you had swift boat. was that clean open, transparent investment or was that taking advantage of the loopholes that existed even before citizens united. >> the fact that you can name
the person that was responsible t. boone pickens suggests that that was reported and in fact it was. that looks like the good old days. they were independent expenditures, but we knew who was financing them and how much they were spending. now we don't know what t. boone pickens might be putting in, to the right packet or left pocket of the candidate. that's the biggest concern, we have not only unlimited money but undisclosed money. >> let's talk about it. a social welfare pack, is that what allows the loophole to go dark? >> that is correct. that is what allows money to go into the system where the donor of the money is completely unreported because that institution is supposed to be spending most of that money on general public purposes and not on political purposes, but we know on the face of it that that's just absurd, because they are spending money on political
purposes make exclusively. >> those existed before citizens united. is it just now that since we're paying more attention to these 501c.4s and other disclosures. have things changed that radically from the rule making side or citizens united woke us up to the further abuses and capacity to abuse it more? >> things have changed dramatically. before corporations themselves could not give money. they've been forbidden since 1907. now they can as a result of citizens united. >> have they made dramatic contributions yet? well -- >> it seems that old fashioned billionaire making those of those. >> the answer is we don't know what we don't know. >> because of the dark money. >> because of the dark money because they're giving to these social welfare organizations
because they don't have to disclose. a corporation predictably is not going to put its name on a super pac because it's going alienate 50% of its consumer audience and we know that they feel, corporations particularly feel pressure when it's exposed. you see the mogul giving, you know and they don't mind if their names are mentioned. >> sometimes they seek it out. >> but the corporations are giving either to the c.4s or trade associations which don't have to disclose, like the chamber of commerce. again, we don't know what we don't know, and because this is not reported, not required to be reported and the fault of this, it's a two fold fault. one is the supreme court did something it seems fundamentally askew and very much at odds with a democracy. the congress has failed to pass law and it's coming up again next week. >> the disclose act.
what does it do? >> the disclose act this version of it is a very simple piece of legislation that requires the disclosure of all of this money that's been given. it will probably not make it actually to a floor vote. it will noble be filibusters or it will be in some kind of procedural -- >> under what basis, to your point, if no one's denying the capacity to give the money but just the ability to report it. i mean, what possibly could those that would argue for filibuster in advance of filibuster argue how can they organs it? sincerely, people are going to be intimidated if they have to disclose? >> it's an invasion of free speech rights to disclose this information when in fact since 1907 this has the bedrock of our finance campaign system, disclosure. there is no reactional argument against it. information is power, so people
who are running for office want power. they do not want to distribute the information. they know that organizations that are technology savvy like the sunlight foundation are going to take the disclosure information and put it in some piece of software that makes it citizens to digest who is financing the candidates and people will make decisions based on whether they think they're candidate is held captive by big banks or big labor. they were make those choices. they want to give people those choices. >> we've got to be fair, big anything. disclosed, undisclosed or in the bright light of sunshine in transparency, the amount of money pouring into politicians hands, there's no way that it doesn't have a dominant influence on the outcome of votes and focus on both sides of the political arena. >> the money determines who runs
for office. if you can't raise money, you're not going to run for office. it determines in large measure who wins. that doesn't mean every candidate who spends the most wins. most do. if you out spend your candidate 2-1, you probably will win. that's just what the statistics tell us. more importantly than that, that was a fundamentally anti democratic influence of the money in politics, but more important, it determines what politicians do after they are elected. money doesn't buy every single volt on every single issue, but when the public is not paying close attention and they can't and don't to most things going on in congress, that's where the money holds sway. members are thinking about their next election campaign, contain afford to make angry at me because i didn't vote their way. it sticks in their mind just as it sticks in their packet. >> i understand that intimately and my gosh, i'd love to have my
own disclosure about just my own experiences with contributions and money and the context of expectation. we've seen it when somebody breaks with that group that was supportive, there are real consequence to say pay and it's not often -- just the threat alone keeps people from doing the right thing. how does it change, public financing is that fundamentally where we need to go, open up the airwaves? there's a certain point where it's absurd, a billion plus dollars from both sides of the political aisle to run for president now, to run for small congressional seats, it's an obscene amount of money. special interests on both sides have very high expectations of the candidate. clean money, is that the answer? i think that's the direct we have to go. personally i've been very involved in the past in the clean money movement making sure the candidates have equal
or nearly equal sums and that they receive public financing after they've received lots of small donor contributions, lots of ways to frame this. >> why do you think be everyone laments and says legalized bribery, bought and paid for it's predictable what we get look where the money comes from and get the opportunity for clean money, absolutely not. where does that come from? >> from the cynicism that they don't want their tax dollars going to those sleazy politicians. there's a disconnect there. they do hate the system, but they also don't want to fix it by putting their money system's broken. for us the focus is on
transparency, because sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant. it is not sufficient, but if you had realtime disclosure that, you know, every single day congress records every dollar that they are receiving, why not put that on the public internet and make it accessible. >> by the way just so folks know, when i ran for lt. governor there's a reporting period where i have to put on line every single dollar. it doesn't stop the campaign. it occurs during a certain period of time. >> on the federal level. >> what's the argument against that 24/7, early in the cycle. who's saying no to that. >> it's burdensome, and all of saying no, because the less the public knows, the less the opposition knows. >> why do we keep electing folks
that refuse on both sides of the political aisle to step up and be more transparent more accountable? are we too focused on other things, our lives are too complex that we can't get down to this level of detail about what's happening or not happening in washington, d.c. and that a lot of folks i mean extraordinary number of people know what you do, but most folks don't know what the sunlight foundation does. how do we scale that consciousness? >> i think until the issue of how we finance campaigns becomes and important voting issue for people as important as jobs and health care and clean air then it will also be secondary and they will vote based on, you know those sort of larger issues. the campaign finance issue has become such a sort of cynical you know, response by the public that they are not going to vote on that. they're going to vote for the
politician who is going to help them get their kids a better education or, you know, get their mother in a better situation for elder care. >> the frustration for me is you've got extraordinary people, i believe believe this, in politics that are trapped by an extraordinarily bad system. you saw it with president obama with these super pacs, that you can't unilaterally disarm if you are in this game and that he would be crushed and rolled over. how do we reconcile good people trapped in a bat system? >> i think you need someone who will break away, who will understand and i think, i believe this to be true, that if they say i will not take super pac money that the people who hate campaign finance system will come to them and say this is a different politician. >> you. >> and it's, you know, that is a
tough choice. i appreciate that, but i do believe in fact that in this day and age where the issue of money and politics is just pervasive and ordinary, every day conversation, that a candidate could be quite successful. >> i like the optimism, and boy i couldn't agree more with everything you're doing at the sunlight foundation. i appreciate it and raising the bar for people like me that sometimes push back because of the norms and the status quo. this is an important discussion. i hope you come back because we have so much more to talk about beyond the issue of money and politics, which to me is the dominant issue but issues of governance, transparency relating to accountability in the decisions we make day in and day out that may or may not be influenced that money. ellen, thank you for being on the show. >> thank you. >> most of you know some of his movies from the right stuff to
vanguard: the documentary series that redefined tv journalism. >>we're going to places where few others are going. >>it doesn't get anymore real than this. >>occupy! >>we will have class warfare. >>i'm being violated by the health-care system. >>we're patrolling the area looking for guns, drugs, bodies. >>we go in and spend a considerable amount of time getting to know the people and the characters that are actually living these stories.
>>the award winning series "vanguard" only on current tv. >> director phil kaufman worked on more than a dozen films the righted stuff and unbearable lightness of being and now with hemingway and gellhorn starring nicole kid man and clive owen. his son has produce add number of his father's films. you created quite a world in hemingway and gellhorn, this spans nine can'tments, decades. tell us about the story. we all know ernest hemingway, by gellhorn known to some. >> hardly known now. in well known. she was on the cover of
magazines, and she and hemingway were the glamour couple of their day. but after she left hemingway she was the only woman to ever leave hemingway, she was by far his most beautiful wife, the public eye stayed on hemingway. even though martha gellhorn continued for 30 years to write her great correspondence, many think she was the greatest of owl correspondents and in fact her art form was going to places and finding the particulars and marie colvin who was killed traguline syria six months ago not only hosted bbc show on martha gellhorn about seven or eight years ago, she was on camera talking about it, but always carried her book, the face of war wherever she went.
she was the discoverer of the thing, but hemingway was hemingway. when we did "the right stuff" one of tom wolfe's terms for the right stuff was grace under pressure. our story becomes which of the two of them really can live up to the hemingway code and i guess we can now say we know that it was martha gellhorn who in the end out did hemingway in that area and hopefully now her writing will be read once again by a lot of people. >> so, i mean, speaking of under pressure was there a lot of pressure because this process was an eight year process for you. i imagine that creates pressure when you begin to focus on a project, you get the original script, was it eight years ago? >> right. >> and then the struggle of actually getting it done and making it. >> yes it's a struggle.
peter has been going through all the material. you have to read everything by the writers and so fort. you get a script. we didn't have it set up, and eventually, we got it set up finally with hbo and hbo decided to make it. how can you make this big movie for an hbo budget, which is by comparisons of features being made today, a miniscule budget. we knew techniques that we had used in other films partly in the right stuff unbearable lightness of being and other films are taking archival footage and now you can do a lot more than we could in the past, but we used to use archival footage and blend. we could have actor scott glenn shaking hands alan shepherd shaking hands with penalty kennedy, but now with green screen, all these modern techniques, i don't think there's been another film especially a dramatic film that all way through combines
archival footage places people in, clive owen and nicole kidman with franklin and eleanor roosevelt, replacing people and having them talk to them. we made this film and it took, you're right to say it took years and years of story boarding, very carefully selecting shots, building little structures, knowing each day because we had a limited schedule, what we needed to get to match with something else and what process we were going to do so that, you know, a film that would have cost maybe $100 million could be did you for under $20 million. >> now obviously celebrity fame money power to extent within the industry, you can influence people, but in the end, what's the satisfaction you get? you look at your body of work and these remarkable films that are quite lit
you're not like a lot of directors. just doing the big bang pop up movies. >> it's a quinn r. combination of some of the things we've been talking about, working with family working in san francisco and one of the reasons we live here is not really as nice as l.a. can be, and many friends down there but, you know, it's a different quality of life, a different style of life. i'm interested in making films about things that interest me things i read, and i want to learn. i mean, i'm learning. i'm not, you know, some films are either teaching you something or just out there in the commercial supermarket just trying to get a good placement on the shelf and so forth. for me, it's, you know, eight this
movie did "the right stuff," i forget, five years, i think we spent on that and" unbearable lightness of being," years and years and years, the rewards of the making of it. after it's done, i really never see the film again. >> what do you think distinguishes your body of work from other directors. bay area, some of the world's great directors living out here. what is your unique contributions to film? >> i have no idea. i don't make the same movie over and over again not necessarily by design. i just try to find, i read something, something interests me, you know, i'm not interested in formulas, although i like to refer to, you know, great things that have happened.
you learn how to you put things together, you learn where the adrenaline is a scene is, how to deposit people into the next scene, but i don't want to do a formulaic film and not everybody at the time the films are seen maybe appreciate that but in the course of time, i don't know. i'm putting it out there and you be the judge. [ laughter ] >> let me ask you. >> in closing what, i mean if we've got these long wait times what you are reading now? what's next? >> we're talking every day. we just talk all the time. my whole life, of course. now that we're unemployed again we are that's the problem in the film business, you're always unemployed, but we've got a number of projects and clive owen came to us with a project we're waiting for the script on it and sort of a detective story, takes place in shanghai
1926, the wickedest city in the world. to shoot it all here. >> well done. [ laughter ] >> ask me later how we did it. >> final thought, i mean, what great compliment, you read all the reviews about hemingway and gellhorn but one of the things i found particularly significant was how complimentary people like clive were to your, to the atmosphere and experience they had. they bring their kids out nicole kidman talked about the same thing how warm and comfortable she felt around you both. that must give you a great sense of satisfaction. >> you're pretty amazed by talent when it comes out when you're in the presence of these people instead of not the kind of director, you know, with a bull horn, you've got to stand here. i mean you need all of that to be done, but, you know, there
are times where clive and doing a scene, say a bed scene, a few of those but you know, i'm sort of an audience, that's how i, you know i -- for my kind of film, i may not be an audience, but i'd be watching them and i forget to say cut. i mean, i'd suddenly realize oh yeah, that's my job cut. but i was enjoying them so much, because they were just enjoying each other so that was fun. >> they work so hard. they really, you know, i mean, they saw what phil was putting everyone worked incredibly hard and had the best time. >> available hbo, hemingway and gellhorn, i wildly encourage people to take a look at it. factualistic historical piece
wonderful entertainment passion, love the, love, all of that, every emotion adventure. i don't know what more looking for in a film. phil peter, thanks for being on the show. >> up next, the most powerful woman in technology, mentales is a myer. sh >>there's not a problem that exists in america today that hasn't been solved by somebody somewhere. >>(narrator) share your views with gavin at politicallydirect.com, a direct line to the gavin newsom show. >>focus on the folks that are making a difference, that are not just dreamers, but doers. >>(narrator) join the conversation.
>> marissa mayer was my guest on the first show in may. she is one of the most in technology. you might argue now she is the most powerful woman in technology presiding over andown billion dollars company. yahoos been drifting for years with the revolving door c.e.o.s. can marissa mayer turn things around? here are five clues. >> mobile is the big wave. for a lot of people, because it's always on always with you they are finding more and more, you know, do you, you know, pick up your phone or your tab let or open up your laptop. it's now becoming a trade-off and people have a couple of different devices they use each day. there will always be desktops, laptops, but we are seeing a huge trend towards mobile. there's a few key tenants that
have helped us stay relevant. we like to work on big problems. search is the second most used application on the web. we looked at email first. like google maps, you know what, we think this is going to be used a lot on the web and more on the phone. we like to work on problems that touch people's every day lives. there are a couple of different ways to innovate. the way i refer to them is they're castle builders and there's bird walkers. if you think about it, you're starting off in a space and like the pressure is here. what do you do? do you pull the curtain closed for two three, four years and then throw them open and hope you've landed on the treasure or do you try something and see if it works and get feedback. there are companies that do a wonderful job with castle building apple they pull the shroud closed, works for a couple of years and pull this
open and it's a wow because no one knew they were working on that it. google we like to work often and it rate. trying a version of something and getting feedback from users having them pull get to that hot spot of what the market really wants. for me, it's about learning challenges and impact. i've been lucky that every time i have gotten to the point where i felt like i wasn't learning as much, there was a new challenge right, you know, and i'd be working on search and get to work on one of my google books on the side. we do a little foray into g mail. some things became big some didn't work out but each let me learn about something new. one of the important parts of failure, you have to learn from it. you have to diagnose what happened and actually figure out what you should learn from it and move on. when i think about the mistakes we made over the years interestingly a lot like failure and speed are inherent.
there have been times when your products have failed because they haven't been fast enough. you've got to watch the speed factor. wait can we go fast enough and if we are failing, can we identify that fast can move on and do something successful. >> nick bilton is here with some thoughts on yahoo, marissa mayer, what's happening in facebook and a preview of apples outlook. great to have you back on the show. >> thanks for having me back on the show. >> you saw marissa there talking about the importance of iteration, failing forward fast thinking big. >> i thought you were going to be the ceo. >> it's not over yet, the way they're resolving. seriously, you've followed tech drives for years and years 5ceo's in five years. >> that's part of the reason she's there she's marissa mayer
and incredibly accomplished, really knows what she's talking about when it comes to technology. i think that she actually works 24 hours a day. i think she takes some sort of drug that keeps her up allows her to create computers in her sleep. there's been a massive exodus from really talented employees over the past years and i think she'll put a little stop to that for now. it gives people a boost in the company, gives them confidence enough partially why i think she was voted in. >> i'm biased for her so i agree with you butty does she give them a boost. she's a product person, technical expertise, understands mobility and importance of that. what is it about those who are at yahoo today that are going to embrace the work she's done in in the past in the context of what she can do for the future. >> 14,000 employees at yahoo are
building these things. although the ceo is the face of the company, it is the employees building the products and it rating the company forward. because there's been such a tremendous amount press about the company, because the stock is falling they're not innovating and mobile along with other things, right now they need to plug the sink and stop before all the water is pulled out and that's all the employees leaving. what she does is she's going to come with the confidence, people are going to say you know what, let's pay attention to yahoo now and see what she's going to do. she will definitely bring employees over from google that are not happy there and recruit people from the industry that will give them a chance to springboard up instead of falling down. >> do you see a lot of changes in as herror management. >> i think ross is probably pretty upset. i know he wanted to be the c.e.o. what they're going to have to do is get people in there marissa
has spoken about mobile. they do not have a good mobile strategy. that's one thing she's going to go after. you're going to see people coming over from other companies. part of the reason marissa went over was because there was a big reorder at google when larry took over at c.e.o. from eric some mitt and marissa was passed up. she was pretty upset about that. she was employee number 20 and pushed to the side while people below her were elevated to higher roles. there were other people that felt the same way. you can imagine she is going to be rum imagining through the drawers and trying to pull people out with her. >> you don't think google will try to keep her? >> absolutely not. i think she was incredibly unhappy and i think that she you know this is an opportunity to show what she is capable of doing almost to a certain degree
thumbing her nose at larry and google. it's funny, 18 hours after the announcement, she sent a message on twitter talking about how wonderful yahoo surf was. she changed her profile on twitter to say literally just says exclamation mark. she's ready to become a part of that company. >> so does marissa go after google directly, does she go after facebook and her big competitors or take a different tact? >> i think she copies facebook. facebook grew tremendously over five years to 900 million users. in the process of doing that, they realized that the internet changed, it had become mobile. they had to kind of turn themselves inside out. you can see mark zukerburg doing that trying to build the company into a mobile platform. she'll probably end up killing a bunch of products and focus on mobile and try to change
anything that is actually successful there and there's a lot of successful things, and try to focus on mobile. >> 700 million people still using yahoo? it's a staggering number. >> it's staggering. yahoo news for me is one of those fascinating stories. whenever news puts a story on their home page, the outlet usually thinks of the site as being hacked because it sends so much traffic. when yahoo links a story from a smaller website, it will call the company first and say we are going to put your story on our home page, get ready. >> what's disposable from your perspective? >> a really great question. i think that one of the questions that i have and was in there is flickr. little not making a lot of money. it's making a little, but it's not the cash cow for yahoo and there are a lot of resources going to that. it's a brand that people love on the internet. do you as maoris does a decide
i'm going to focus on making it a better experience an competing with infra gram as a social network or say you know what, it's best that we get rid of it. those are the tough decisions she'll have to make. i would take the love and products people care about and double down on them. >> is yahoo a media company or technology company? >> i think every technology company is a media company. al pell sell music videos, she have social networks they're involved with. >> when we come back, more, including >>it's the place where democracy is supposed to be the great equalizer, where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's.
>> their latest iteration or the one that is most eagerly being hyped, september are we going to see the apple iphone five. >> i believe september or october we will see the apple iphone five. >> you took big shots at their siri, that you did a blog recently and everyone's had their frustration with siri. is there a siri2? >> my problem is it doesn't work at advertised. these great advertisements with samuel jackson having a conversation with it as you and i are now when actually this would be 20-30 second pauses in between. it's a wonderful product and apple trying to enter the search space and compete with google. it doesn't work that well yet but they could easily fix that. one of the problems is it's a matter of speed. that would be allocating more servers or whatever they need to
do. this is a company that is really serious about this for search in the future and i think they are they need to focus on this. >> improve siri, a bigger screen. >> the rumors are it's going to be a bigger screen, the phone will be longer. >> not wider. >> that's some of the things that have been floating around on the mac rumor sights. better battery life, better camera, photography for the iphone has become one of the paramount features. >> what do you make of some of this post facebook i.p.l.? a lot of people lost a lot of money, investment banks like morgan stanley getting criticized for pushing the price too high, $39 less than 30 now. too early to be that critical or is it appropriate criticism at
this stage. >> i think it was a disaster of epic proportions. it was greed when you had people pushing the stock up too high, greed pushing out more stock than originally quoted. it was a mess up by the nasdaq because they thought they could handle the trading and clearly couldn't. it was the fact that facebook didn't realize that looking projections about mobile would be different. so you have all these factors you throw them in together, and this is what happened, the stock is now i believe around 28, and when it opened at 38 and even popped up higher in the very first few days. i think if i owned the stock, i would wait, it will eventually make its way back up. you have sheryl sandberg, mark zukerburg, all these smart people there. the good thing is it put a little cold water into the furnace here, because there was
so much frothiness about the i.p.o. and it was kind of like the late 1990's. >> so you think that was a good thing, we were getting back, last time you were talking about the bubble mentality the sense that things were getting a little exuberant. >> you still have ridiculous exaggeration of start ups billions of dollars, i could spend 20 minutes listing them all, but that has down. companies are saying we were thinking about doing an i.p.o., but we'll wait. >> did they put out too many shares, as well? linkd in was 10 million. >> the last round of i.p.o.'s, group on, facebook, they all were greedy. they went after, they tried to get at much money as possible. linkd in did it slowly, put out
a slow amount and did more and more and more. they are up. that's where the difference lies. >> who do you see working through this current situation and getting out front and then getting into the i.p.o. market. what's the next big i.p.o.? >> you have companies like twitter, i think twitter is i believe a year and a depending and it also depends what the market does. they are definitely making money now, doing pretty well money wise and their revenue continues to grow. there's a number of different smaller start ups that we're certain to see enter the space that could happen in the next year or two. >> speaking of making money microsoft came out first quarterly profit. >> honestly, it is the fact that, you know, their successes
right now are gaming, and, you know, the x box is incredibly successful for them. the enterprise software and, you know, things of that nature have been really, really important but the internet and computing is changing and microsoft has taken quite a while to get back to that. the fact that they're now just releasing microsoft branded tab let just getting their footing in mole, there's all these things that passed them by and they've looked up and said oh boy, what do we do now. >> thanks for being back. >> thanks for having me on. >> for the close of the show, i want to go back to the beginning and talk >> i want to focus on the folks that are making a difference. (vo) here's how you can connect with the gavin newsom show. >>i'm an outsider in the inside. ideas are the best politics.
>> wee featured some extraordinarily strong and powerful women on the show today. martha gellhorn, marissa mayer and ellen miller, fighting every day for transparency in politics this is an issue that's of code red importance to me and obviously taking center stage in our presidential race right now. why is it that mitt romney is refusing to disclose more than two years of his tax runs. voters have a right to know information, a right to know information about the two men running for president, including financial records prior to 2010. heck even as a candidate for mayor of san francisco, i disclosed five years of my tax returns. that was the price of entry. obama's campaign is right to
argue that releasing more documents will help all of us better understand romney's role as cofounder of bayne capitol especially democrats saying he has made deals to close plants in the united states and out source jobs. we have a right to know if that's true. the race for the white house is an obviously big deal and expensive one at that with spending on both sides reaching to the hundreds of millionion of dollars, voters deserve to know the facts. mitt romney, what what are you hiding? thanks for watching the show. don't forget to check in with us on our website twitter facebook and google plus.
>> this court has proven to be the knowing, delighted accomplice in the billionaires' purchase of our nation. >> and you think it doesn't affect you? think again. [ beads rattling ] [ male announcer ] spearmint that tingles as you chew. stimulate your senses. 5 gum. now in micro pack. nah, he's probably got... [ dennis' voice ] allstate. they can bundle all your policies together. lot of paperwork. [ doug's voice ] actually... [ dennis' voice ] an allstate agent can help do the switching and paperwork for you. well, it probably costs a lot. [ dennis' voice ] allstate can save you up to 30% more when you bundle. well, his dog's stupid. [ dennis' voice ] poodles are one of the world's smartest breeds.
♪ ♪ bundle and save with an allstate agent. are you in good hands? and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ♪